Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 706 (KAR)

Varalakshmamma v. Navimbhai J. Momiya

2009-09-01

K.L.MANJUNATH

body2009
Judgment :- B.V. Nagarathna, J. Though this matter is posted for admission, with the consent of learned Counsel on both sides, it is heard finally. 2. This appeal is filed by the legal representatives of one Ramareddy, seeking enhancement of compensation on account of his death, by challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.101 of 2000 dated 24.12.2005 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. 3. The facts of the case in a nut shell are that on 27.11.1999 Ramareddy was proceeding on his scooter bearing No. KA-04-K-531 from Bangalore towards Hosur on NH-7 and when he reached Forest Check-post Zuzuvadi, a lorry bearing No.KA-01-6349 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter and as a result of the said collision Ramareddy sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the said injuries on the spot. Contending that they had lost the bread earner of the family, his legal representatives filed the claim petition seeking compensation on various heads. 4. After service of notice from the Tribunal, the respondent 1 failed to appear and was placed ex parte while 2nd respondent-Insurance Company appeared and contested the matter. 5. In order to prove their case, the claimants examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.20 while the respondent did not let in any evidence, except getting a copy of the insurance policy marked as Ex.R.1. On the basis of the said material, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,30,000/-with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization. Not being satisfied with the said award, the claimants have preferred this appeal. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company. 7. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the deceased was working in M/s. Ashok Leyland Limited. He was 42 years of age and was earning a salary of Rs.9,000/-per month. However, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the documentary evidence on record and instead took into consideration monthly salary of Rs.2,332/-only for the purpose of determining compensation on the head of loss of dependency, which is on the lower side. He further submits that the award on the other heads also require enhancement. 8. However, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the documentary evidence on record and instead took into consideration monthly salary of Rs.2,332/-only for the purpose of determining compensation on the head of loss of dependency, which is on the lower side. He further submits that the award on the other heads also require enhancement. 8. Per contra, supporting the judgment and award, Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that Ex.P.10 which was produced by the claimants could not have been relied upon by the Tribunal, considering the fact that the said document comprises of not only the pay but also the allowances which could not have been taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the monthly income and therefore the Tribunal was justified in awarding compensation of Rs.3,30,000/-which does not call for any interference in this appeal. 9. Having heard the Counsel on both sides, the only point that arises for our consideration is as to whether the appellants are entitled to additional compensation. 10. From the material on record, it is evident that the deceased was working in M/s. Ashok Leyland Limited. It was contended by the claimant that he was earning a salary of Rs.9,000/-per month. However, as far as documentary evidence is concerned, Ex.P.11 which is a salary slip was marked in evidence and a perusal of the said document would show that the gross earnings of the deceased was not only with regard to the pay and the dearness allowance but it comprised of several other allowances such as washing allowance, hospital allowance, educational allowance, and thereby the total earnings was shown as Rs.6,904.98 and the net pay shown is Rs.2,540/-. The Tribunal has taken into consideration only the net pay for the purpose of assessing the compensation on the head of loss of dependency. On a reading of the said document, we are of the considered view that though the gross salary was Rs.6,904/-, the salary which has to be assessed for the purpose of determining the compensation would have to be Rs.5,500/-after giving weightage to certain deductions from the salary. Considering the fact that the deceased was 42 years of age, 30% of the said salary would have to be added on the head of future prospects thereby making the total salary at Rs.7,150/-. Considering the fact that the deceased was 42 years of age, 30% of the said salary would have to be added on the head of future prospects thereby making the total salary at Rs.7,150/-. Out of the said amount, 1/3rd would have to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and by applying the multiplier of 14, compensation on the head of loss of dependency is assessed at Rs.8,40,000/-. In addition, a sum of Rs.40,000/-is awarded on conventional heads thereby taking the total compensation to Rs.8,80,000/-instead of Rs.3,30,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till realisation. Out of the enhanced compensation, 50% is apportioned to the 1st appellant and 25% each is apportioned to the 2nd and 3rd appellants. 80% of the enhanced compensation with proportionate interest shall be put in a fixed deposit in any Nationalised Bank for an initial period of 5 years and the appellants shall be entitled to draw the periodical interest on the said deposit. The balance compensation shall be released to each of the appellants. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed-in-part.